Global warming - a hot conference topic

However, this year, all the main parties have been falling over themselves to try to portray themselves as the most environmentally friendly political force.

Most of the focus appears to be on global climate change, and how Britain should deal with the consequences.

The interesting thing about the debate of global warming is that it appears to have gathered a great deal of momentum in this country over the last two-three years, partly, perhaps, as a result of the seemingly unusual weather patterns that Britain has experienced during this time.

Politicians have debated global warming many times, of course, but this is the first time I can remember it being such a high-profile issue across the political spectrum from green to blue.

At the time of writing, the Conservatives have yet to hold their debate on environmental issues at their conference, although there are promise to debate the merits of low-cost flights and the environmental damage they cause.

Labour announced a 10 million package for encouraging investment in renewable energy at their conference, while the Liberal Democrats urged the government to ditch the idea of providing more nuclear power stations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Greens went further still by reinforcing their policy to introduce personal carbon quotas that could be bought and sold. Although it is likely that we are currently in a phoney war stage, with a general election officially not due until 2010 (unless the fallout of the Labour leadership challenge dictates otherwise), could we see the environment as one of the major factors influencing the result of the next election?

It would certainly be ironic, given that environmental issues barely featured on the radar last time.

While it is encouraging that climate change in particular is back on the agenda and that the various political parties have acknowledged the importance of action, it is a little disappointing that there isn't more cross-party debate.

Given the difficult changes to our lives promised by the science community, it would seem that global warming is likely to have an even greater impact than the "war on terror".

When it comes to the security of the nation, there is usually cross-party support for dealing with the issues at stake.

Shouldn't it be the same with global climate change?

Rather than fighting each other over what kind of action to take on global warming and losing valuable time arriving at solutions, wouldn't it be more positive if politicians from all persuasions were to work together on what is likely to be the greatest environmental impact in history?